> << Should we let all people off who break the law just because they could
have
>  committed worse crimes? ... strange logic.
>   >>
>
> I'm not saying anything about that. What I am illustrating, is that there
are
> levels of offense. To go back to the chalk example, would you prosecute
that
> person, and give them the same sentence as you would a person that did it
in
> spray paint? I'm not promoting lack of punishment, but you seem to want to
> give this person the death sentence. Do you think that's fair? Or would
you
> agree that a certain level of punishment is needed? You are acting as if
this
> person hacked you bank account and went on a shopping spree. That would be
> more severe correct? You would want strict vengeance for that. I would.
> That's my opinion though.

You've changed you tune.... before, you were telling us what a service this
guy did for us :)

as a starter for appropriate punishment think of it this way...

if the guy cause me an hours worth of work and my time is worth, say, $50
per hour then maybe he should pay $50...

but if he has cause an aggregate time loss of say 100 hours for all the list
members who were unable to access the web site.... then at $50 per hour that
would be a find of $5000.....

I don't know if those numbers are accurate or now, but you get the idea...
and neither $50 or $5000 amount to chalk!

Bill